Well, sure. In a benign environment like any kind of "training", the nuance isn't
justified. But if we shift the context from training to *testing*, the nuance becomes crucial.
There's a MMA guy in Portland who makes a great argument for testing your training against a
"live" opponent. Despite his peri-right-wing opinions on various things, he's absolutely
right. And our adversarial technologies demonstrate it well enough in controlled environments.
In another context, a friend of mine who trains and tests PhD candidates by being on their committees, advising them,
etc., distinguishes between PhDs and "super techs" who happen to have PhDs. Similarly, growing up, the
rednecks around me were constantly yapping about "book smart" vs. "street smart". And, yet anther
example is "gatekeeping", people who (think they can) recognize bad faith in that nuance.
Practically, we, as a species, are very good at recognizing the patterns of
superficial versus deep mimicry [⛧]. So the low SnR argument has to be couched
in terms of *why* we're so good at it? If it's rarely justified, why are we so
sensitive to such nuance? The same question can be dually inverted: Why do so
many of us *want* to feel included? To have a tribe (from which we can exile
the posers)?
[⛧] Yes, that's begging for some data. Experiments showing the [in]ability to
detect deep fakes, emotions behind facial expressions, shaming of cheaters in
clinical psych games, etc. are rife with methodological problems. So, if anyone
simply contradicts me and says we're *not* good at such things, I'll probably
just concede. I don't really have the data to back my position. But it would be
fun to knead over particular experiment reports. I guess Dunning-Kruger could
be referenced. Maybe very few of us are good at it, but the very many of us who
are incompetent believe we're competent?
On 9/6/22 07:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I had to do some cybersecurity training and it was set up so that all the
choices one could make led to the same outcome. The point was to understand
the properties of the paths, not the outcome.
While that wisdom might be of some value in some other situation, often there
is no discernable difference between the nuance in a social rule and variation
that arises due to novelty or ambiguity of circumstances. The signal to noise
ratio just isn't high enough to justify the extra precision. The actors in
this training could have been interpreted as quietly demonstrating concern
rather than neglect. One could imagine a cartel boss would not want to wait
for a reasonable number of outliers before taking action. After all the
cartel boss is a criminal and not concerned with fairness. An experienced
undercover cop knows she needs to mimic the expected distribution very
carefully, and that even if she does mimic it very carefully her life is still
in danger.
Marcus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:57 AM
*To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
Well, Steve's targeting of "feeling included" does target "understanding". I'd argue that
the spies don't understand the communities they infiltrate. Even deep undercover or method acting doesn't
provide understanding. I argue that any bad faith actor like a spy or "acting while cynical" has a
reductive objective as their target. What was interesting about the concept of bad faith was Sartre's
suggestion that the deep undercover operator who finally *does* begin to identify with the community they've
infiltrated is the interesting edge case. That's the cusp of understanding.
I suppose I'm making a similar argument to EricC's argument for "belief", which I call
"dispositional". If you don't act on your belief, then you don't actually believe that
thing. So, an undercover cop who infiltrates a drug cartel but refuses to Necklace a local
do-gooder just doesn't understand what it means to be in the cartel. They can't understand. And
they shouldn't understand. The spy is there for a more specific objective, not understanding.
One of those more specific objectives might be *prediction*. In simulation and
[x|i]ML, there's a stark distinction between predictive versus explanatory
power. Ideally, strong explanatory power provides predictive power. But
practically, 80/20, reductive prediction is easier, faster, and more important.
The excess meaning is swept under the rug of variation or noise. At raves, a
reductive objective is harm reduction. Sure, it would be fantastic to teach all
the kids pharmaco[kinetics|dynamics] and chemistry ... as well as psychology
and neuroscience. But the harm reduction tent is not really there to get into
the kids' minds. The objective isn't understanding. It's a reductive focus on
dampening the edge cases.
On 9/3/22 08:47, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The claim is that there is all this diversity in subcultures and that the only
way to understand them is to participate in them. If it is possible to fake
it, and I think it is, then that raises doubts about the claim. That is what
spies specialize in.
On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
I have spent most of my life avoiding "acting while cynical"... I have *felt* cynical about a lot
of things, and Marcus' description of a lot of things speaks to my "inner cynic" but I haven't
spent much time being *harmed* by engaging in "performative activities while feeling cynical about
them". If I dig a hole it is either because *I* need a hole, or someone else *needs* a whole, and
only rarely do I help someone dig a hole as a team/trust/affinity building exercise unless the There are
too many holes in the world that *want* digging to spend much effort en-performance.
I've never felt particulary "included" in any social circle and I have seen that a little
bit of "Performative Grease" might have helped this square peg fit more-better in the
round holes it encountered, but generally I simply avoided those activities and drifted further
and further out. That is not to say I haven't *tried* to be a good sport and do what others were
doing on the off chance that it would actually be something that worked for me, but generally not.
BTW... there seems to be some inverted general usage of
"square-peg/round-hole", drilling a round hole and then driving a square(ish)
peg into it guarantees a good tight fit... it is preferred to round peg-round hole in
traditional joinery.
On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote:
OK. But the affinity and "inner self" alluded to by the phrase "faking it" is
nothing but a personality momentum, a build-up of past behaviors, like a fly-wheel spun up by all
the previous affinities and faking of it. We faked it in our mom's womb, faked it as babies, faked
it as children on the playground or in class, etc. all the way up to the last time we faked it
digging ditches or pair programming in Java.
The only difference between feeling an affinity and engaging in a new faking it
exercise is the extent to which the new collaboration is similar to the
previous collaborations. As both Steve and Dave point out, spend enough time
living in a world and you'll grow affine to that world (and the world will
grow affine to you).
I suppose it's reasonable to posit a spectrum (or a higher dim space) on which
some people have particularly inertial fly-wheels and others have more easily
disturbed things that store less energy. Of the Big 5, my guess would be
neuroticism would be most inertial. Perhaps openness and agreeableness would
be the least inertial.
On 9/2/22 05:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:
There are many common tasks that parties could direct their attention toward.
This happens at companies, prison cafeterias, and churches. That it is
grounded in a particular way doesn't make it any truer, or anyone more
committed to it. We are often forced to participate in cultures we don't
care about, and faking it is an important skill. Just because someone sweats
or gets calluses or tolerates others' inappropriate emotions in some circle of
people, doesn't mean there is any affinity toward that circle. Oh look, he dug
a hole. I dug a hole. Sure, I'd do those kind of performative activities if
I were a politician, as I bet there are people who think this way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
And, of course, there is no such thing except appearance. What could it
possibly mean to say that an appearance of a bond exists, but no actual bond
exists?
On September 1, 2022 7:29:45 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]>
wrote:
If you want to create the appearance of a bond where none exists, get to work.
Once one recognizes the nature of work it is easy.
On Sep 1, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote:
From glen: "If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to
*work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking,
communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst."
This is kinda the whole point of Participant Observation at the core of
cultural anthropology. The premise is you cannot truly understand a culture
until you live it.
Of course, there is still a boundary, a separation, between the anthropologist
and those with whom she interacts, but sweat, calluses, blood, and emotions go
a long way toward establishing actual understanding.
davew
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
On 9/1/22 11:21 AM, glen wrote:
Inter-brain synchronization occurs without physical co-presence during
cooperative online gaming
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750>
There's a lot piled into the aggregate measures of EEG. And the mere fact of the canalization
conflates the unifying tendencies of the objective (shared purpose) with that of the common
structure (virtual world, interface, body, brain). But overall, it argues against this guru focus
on "sense-making" (hermeneutic, monistic reification) and helps argue for the fundamental
plurality, openness, and stochasticity of "language games".
If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to *work*.
Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking, communicating, is
inadequate at best, disinfo at worst.
I agree somewhat with the spirit of this, however a recent writer/book I discovered is Sand
Talk<https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714
<https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714>>
by Tyson Yunkaporta and more specifically his references to "Yarning" in his indigenous
Australian culture offered me a complementary perspective...
I definitely agree that the "building of something together" is a powerful
world-building/negotiating/collaborative/seeking experience. The social sciences use the term Boundary
Object<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object>> and
Boundary Negotiation Artifact. Jenny and I wrote a draft white-paper on the topic of the SimTable as a "boundary
negotiating artifact" last time she visited (2019?). A lot of computer-graphics/visualization products provide
fill this role, but the physicality of a sand-table with it's tactility and multiple perspectives add yet more. The
soap-box racer or fort you build with your friend as a kid provides the same. The bulk of my best relationships in life
involved "building something together" whether it be a software system or a house...
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
